Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 207–218 | Cite as

The role of general education in teacher education

  • Pertti KansanenEmail author
Schwerpunkt: Allgemeinbildung oder Grundbildung

Summary

Teacher education aims at good teaching. However, research findings concerning good teaching and good teachers are ambiguous. The paper reflects on the Finnish curriculum for teacher education. In this curriculum, there are two levels, one focussing on a basic domain of teacher education, i.e. methodology, subject matter instruction, pedagogical content knowledge et cetera. This level is enriched by a second level which is identified as general teacher education. In this respect, teacher education focuses on the intricate mix of normative and descriptive elements in the interaction between teaching and learning, on the combination of declarative and procedural knowledge and their relation to professional beliefs and attitudes, on ethics of education et cetera. For both levels, it is assumed that instruction should be research-based, and that a research-based approach should be practiced for everyday teaching as well. Practice teaching, therefore, is closely linked to curriculum studies, to teacher research (in the German sense of Lehrerforschung durch die Lehrerinnen und Lehrer, not in the American sense of teacher research), and educational theory.

Keywords

Teacher Education Pedagogical Content Knowledge General Education Teacher Education Program Good Teaching 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Zusammenfassung

Die Rolle der Allgemeinbildung in der Lehrerbildung

Lehrerbildung hat die Befähigung, gut zu unterrichten, als ihre Zielsetzung. Die Forschungsergebnisse bezüglich der Frage, was guten Unterricht kennzeichnet und wer ein guter Lehrer ist, sind allerdings nicht eindeutig. Der Beitrag beleuchtet vor diesem Hintergrund das finnische Curriculum für die Lehrerbildung. In diesem Curriculum gibt es zwei Ebenen. Die eine bezieht sich auf die elementare Funktion der Lehrerausbildung, also auf Unterrichtsmethoden, Fachunterricht, (fach-)didaktisches Wissen (pedagogical content knowledge) usw. Diese Ebene wird durch eine zweite Ebene ergänzt, die sich als Allgemeinbildung in der Lehrerbildung (general education in teacher education) beschreiben lässt. Lehrerbildung auf dieser Ebene ist auf den komplizierten Mix von normativen und desriptiven Elementen in der Lehr-Lern-Situation, auf die Kombination von deklarativem und prozeduralem Wissen und ihren Bezug auf fachliche Überzeugungen und Haltungen, auf die Ethik der Erziehung und anderes bezogen. Für beide Ebenen wird eine forschungsbezogene Lehre ausgewiesen. Schulpraktische Studien werden deshalb sorgfältig auf die Didaktik der Unterrichtsfächer, auf Unterrichtsforschung und auf die erziehungswissenschaftliche Theoriebildung bezogen.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baumert, J. /Blum, W. /Neubrand, M. (2004): Drawing the lessons from PISA 2000. Long-term research implications: Gaining a better understanding of the relationship between system inputs and learning outcomes by assessing instructional and learning processes as mediating factors. In: Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, Beiheft 3-04, Wiesbaden, pp.143–157.Google Scholar
  2. Bengtsson, J. (1995): What is reflection? On reflection in the teaching profession and teacher education. In: Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 1(1), 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengtsson, J. (2001): Towards an ontological understanding of teaching. Nordisk Pedagogik, 21(3), 134–148.Google Scholar
  4. Calderhead, J. (1984): Teachers’ classroom decision-making. — London.Google Scholar
  5. Darling-Hammond, L. /Youngs, P. (2002): Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? In: Educational Researcher, Vol. 31(9), pp. 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darling-Hammond, L. /Chung, R. /Frelow, F. (2002): Variation in teacher preparation. How well do different pathways prepare teachers to teach? In: Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 53(4), pp. 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doyle, W. (1990): Themes in teacher education research. In: Houston, W.R. /Haberman, M. /Sikula, J. (Eds.): Handbook of research on teacher education. — New York, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  8. Fitzgibbons, R. E. (1981): Making educational decisions. An introduction to philosophy of education. — New York.Google Scholar
  9. Gage, N. L. (1978): The scientific basis of the art of teaching. — New York.Google Scholar
  10. Gage, N. L. (Ed.) (1963): Handbook of research on teaching. — Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Galluzo, G. R. /Pankratz, R. S. (1990): Five attributes of a teacher education program knowledge base. In: Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 41(4), pp. 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guhl, E. /Ott, E. H. (1985): Unterrichtsmehtodisches Denken und Handeln. — Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  13. Handal, G. /Lauvås, P. (1987): Promoting reflective teaching. Supervision in practice. — Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  14. Howey, K. (1996): Designing coherent and effective teacher education programs. In: Sikula, J. (Ed.): Handbook of research on teacher education. — New York, pp. 143–170.Google Scholar
  15. Hytönen, J. (1995): The role of school practice in teacher education. In: Kansanen, P. (Ed.): Discussions on Some Educational Issues VI. Research Report 145. Helsinki: Department of Teacher Education, University of Helsinki (ED394958), pp. 77–83.Google Scholar
  16. Kansanen, P. (1991): Pedagogical thinking: the basic problem of teacher education. In: European Journal of Education, Vol. 26, pp. 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kansanen, P. (1999): Teaching as teaching-studying-learning interaction. In: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 43(1), pp. 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kansanen, P. (2001): Using subjective pedagogical theories to enhance teacher education. In: Unterrichtswissenschaft, Vol. 29(3), pp. 268–286.Google Scholar
  19. Kansanen, P. (2002): Didactics and its relation to educational psychology: Problems in translating a key concept across research communities. In: International Review of Education, Vol. 48(6), pp. 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kansanen, P. (2003): Studying — the realistic bridge between instruction and learning. An attempt to a conceptual whole of the teaching-studying-learning process. In: Educational Studies, Vol. 29(2/3), pp. 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kansanen et al. 2000 = Kansanen, P. /Tirri, K. /Meri, M. /Krokfors, L. /Husu, J. /Jyrhämä, R. (2000): Teachers’ pedagogical thinking. Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. — New York.Google Scholar
  22. Kindsvatter, R. /Wilen, W. /Ishler, M. (1992): Dynamics of effective teaching. — 2nd ed. — New York.Google Scholar
  23. Klafki, W. (1991): Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Zeitgemäße Allgemeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. — 2. erw. Aufl. — Weinheim.Google Scholar
  24. Kleven, T. A. (1991): Interactive teacher decision-making — still a basic skill? In: Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 35, pp. 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. König, E. (1975): Theorie der Erziehungswissenschaft. Band 1: Wissenschaftstheoretische Richtungen der Pädagogik. — München.Google Scholar
  26. Kuhn, D. (1991): The skills of argument. — New York.Google Scholar
  27. Meyer, H. (1980): Leitfaden zur Unterrichtsvorbereitung. — Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
  28. Oser, F. K. /Dick, A. /Patry, J.-L. (1992): Effective and responsible teaching. — San Francisco.Google Scholar
  29. Pallas, A. M. (2001): Preparing education doctoral students for epistemological diversity. In: Educational Researcher, Vol. 30(5), pp. 6–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paschen, H. /Wigger, L. (Hrsg.) (1992): Pädagogisches Argumentieren. — Weinheim.Google Scholar
  31. Penso, S. /Shoham, E. (2003): Student teachers’ reasoning while making pedagogical decisions. In: European Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 26(3), pp. 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ryans, D. G. (1960): Characteristics of teachers. — Washington, D.C.: American Council of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Schön, D. A. (1983): The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. — New York.Google Scholar
  34. Shavelson, R. J. (1973): What is the basic teaching skill? In: Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 24, pp. 144–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tenorth, H.-E. (1988): Geschichte der Erziehung. Einführung in die Grundzüge ihrer neuzeitlichen Entwicklung. — Weinheim.Google Scholar
  36. Terhart, E. (Hrsg.) (2000): Perspektiven der Lehrerbildung in Deutschland. Abschlussbericht der von der Kultusministerkonferenz eingesetzten Komission. — Weinheim.Google Scholar
  37. Toulmin, S. (1958): The uses of argument. — Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Wayne, A. J. /Youngs, P. (2003): Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. In: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 73(1), pp. 89–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilson, S. M. /Floden, R. E. /Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001): Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. — Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  40. Young, L. J. (2001): Border crossing and other journeys: Re-envisioning the doctoral preparation of educational researchers. In: Educational Researcher, Vol. 30(5), pp. 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/Wiesbaden 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Applied Sciences of EducationUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations